Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

The Pansh A15, an A18 review

For all foil kite riders


foilholio
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2391
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:20 am
Kiting since: 1337
Local Beach: Ventura Beach
Favorite Beaches: Tarifa
Style: Airstyle
Gear: Foils
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby foilholio » Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:54 am

Collapsing suggests camber increased, most likely C was engaging before Z, without C then Z freely engages earlier. Did you try extending Z to compensate?

Kiter_from_Germany
Medium Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:39 am
Kiting since: 4
Local Beach: Northern Sea, Netherlands
Style: intermediate Twin, beginner Wave
Gear: Tubes: North Dice 10,ozone catalyst 14, Slingshot Turbine 17m and others
Foil: pansh A15 12m, 18m
Gear: Anton MTrain, (strapless) Directionals
Brand Affiliation: none

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby Kiter_from_Germany » Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:34 am

foilholio wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:54 am
Collapsing suggests camber increased, most likely C was engaging before Z, without C then Z freely engages earlier. Did you try extending Z to compensate?
Hello, I don't wanna give to many remarks as long I am not able to get some Vids of a nice flying kite back to the community :-?

Getting Rid of C may be a good way to get away with the problem of weak Z. Engauging and loosing could be worth an effort.
Indeed FS did that with S4 some days ago using a three bridle system (I document just for others may be able to follow)
Lines_S4.png
One remark here: I took the resleaving Idea (resleaving B78 to A89) from this to get a stable front for the kite like they did with ab lines.
Look at the way back B connection points in Kites center. Would be a good idea to take a closer look at s4 in reality, but in lineplan it looks like bejond 50% for B.

I had a try and demounted C completely. Not too difficult with the lineplan and measurements.

The collapsing I saw was initiated by a flipping of the kites achterliek (backtail). It looked like the brake effekt you see at powerkites.
Complete collapsing of kite stalling was a result of this, I would say.

I myself stoppt at this point, but a tweaking of lines may help as in every area we are facing.

Just to summarize my thoughs with the profile thickness and neccessary support points:
Profile Pressure.png
Profile Pressure.png (121.03 KiB) Viewed 4563 times
Obviously A and B is able to stand the high amounts of deltaP (under- and over- pressures) in the front region of the profile.

Getting rid of C makes it nessessary to hold the integral of dPs between B and Z, C is no more.
Profile Pressure_1.png
Profile Pressure_1.png (120.8 KiB) Viewed 4563 times
The stability of the profile itself may be to weak to stand the force between the two anchorpoints (B and Z) because of the reduced thickness of profile resulting in breaking the profile (flipping of Z area)...
So I came up with the idea that it may be a good idea to treat more support points the thinner the profile is in this part of profile,
which is a Characteristic of the backweighted mixer.

Just my thoughts...

kitexpert
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:20 pm
Kiting since: 2003
Gear: many kites, also diy
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby kitexpert » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:39 am

@foilholio: please don't mess your misunderstandings with me and put your words in my mouth.

@Kiter_From_Germany: It is ok to study and experiment with the mixers, I did that quite a lot 10-13 years ago. I experimented most configurations, also weird pulling ratios exceeding 100%. I even had a system in which pulling ratios could be altered quite freely - there is a small puzzle to foilholio how it is done :)

Not much happened since, F-one's turbo-system and FS's method to use different ratios like they do in Sonic Race are the most significant "inventions" (I'm not sure if that is too bold word), but in practice useful only for high AR race kites.

In short: practically everything is already tested, many many times. If some development is really to be expected there must be first a clear view why and what should be done - randomly trying different (already used) mixers is just believing in miracles.

It should be remembered there is widely used 1:2:4 mixer for a good reason: it does its work very well. In reality foil kite design concentrates in very different things than a mixer, it is one of the parts in foil kites which can be said is "completed". It really wasn't difficult to foresee that most advanced foil kite so far, FS Soul, has that mixer too.

Pansh A15 bridle is from the better part of the Pansh designs, it can be improved because basic design is not that bad. However general advice is to try keep things as much factory settings as possible and to tweak only if there is evident problems and certainly known remedies to them. If I had that kite I'd redesign the bridle from the beginning but it is a bit too much work for normal user.

foilholio
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2391
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:20 am
Kiting since: 1337
Local Beach: Ventura Beach
Favorite Beaches: Tarifa
Style: Airstyle
Gear: Foils
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby foilholio » Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:51 pm

Actually for higher camber I think deleting C might be better. I was thinking the opposite before your illustration, with the increase curve from high camber I thought more support would be needed, but now I think the extra bridling is likely to create 2 bottom skin concaves vs the 1. You raise an interesting point for extra support in the thin part of the profile, but both Inflatables and singles skins have less support there. maybe trying to hold less camber it is important. Your drawings give a good idea to the balances of forces on the mixer and can see clearly why moving B back reduces bar pressure. But also remember center of lift and forces on a wing are not static.

As to kit expert who does he think he is to give approval what other people try with kite design? LoL the law maker of kite design? What a joke!

Mixer design is far from settled, mixers with an extra ratio are the new thing.

How someone can obsess over using less bridle line when they can't even grasp a proper understanding of airfoils... wow!

Kiter_from_Germany
Medium Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:39 am
Kiting since: 4
Local Beach: Northern Sea, Netherlands
Style: intermediate Twin, beginner Wave
Gear: Tubes: North Dice 10,ozone catalyst 14, Slingshot Turbine 17m and others
Foil: pansh A15 12m, 18m
Gear: Anton MTrain, (strapless) Directionals
Brand Affiliation: none

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby Kiter_from_Germany » Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:00 pm

Hello together,
sonic race sounds impressive, but I didnt got a lineplan to see whats going on there...

@foilholio:
easiest way hits!
try this 3bridle tweak, would reduce the wind resistance.
I just didnt make it fly...

@kiteexpert:
pansh A15 in 18m didnt work for me on the water in our gusty winds here.
Due to low AR design of the kite the kite results in a very deep profile 2,20m which results in a power stroke of about 1,2m bar throw stalltostall.
For me unhandable.
First trys where using a 2:1 bar (modern design, North QR) where ok but ugly Z no-tension most of bar throw.
Not very nice.
BTW: Video was ‚robbed‘ by pansh, now proudly on their website... 🤔🤫
I got back to conventional 60cm bar and found backweighted mixer in conjunction with the geometric stiched fixing points (center of kite) gives a nice extra gear of approx +25% (described in former posts), without recognizable negative side effects.
This is an impressive extend for kite designs being able to create bigger still agile low AR kites.
Profile depth is a major issue for noagility.
One reason why we see so much High AR, but their disadvantage is a nomargin for fabrication errors or lineshrinking over time (<- will be a big point in this expensive new high AR kite, I bed)

Together with a fix of the obviously wrong calcultated Z bridle system by pansh I saw a very nice flying kite already. Gonna continue with that, vids will follow.

kitexpert
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:20 pm
Kiting since: 2003
Gear: many kites, also diy
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby kitexpert » Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:00 pm

Kiter_from_Germany wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:00 pm

Due to low AR design of the kite the kite results in a very deep profile 2,20m which results in a power stroke of about 1,2m bar throw stalltostall.


Something strange here, chord length of 2.2m is long but not unusually so. It should be able to handle with an appropriate bar with long depower line. Respectively, if kite is small chord length can be half of that, then sheeting range is quite often limited by shorter depower line.
Kiter_from_Germany wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:00 pm
I got back to conventional 60cm bar and found backweighted mixer in conjunction with the geometric stiched fixing points (center of kite) gives a nice extra gear of approx +25% (described in former posts), without recognizable negative side effects.
This is an impressive extend for kite designs being able to create bigger still agile low AR kites.
Profile depth is a major issue for noagility.
One reason why we see so much High AR, but their disadvantage is a nomargin for fabrication errors or lineshrinking over time (<- will be a big point in this expensive new high AR kite, I bed)

Together with a fix of the obviously wrong calcultated Z bridle system by pansh I saw a very nice flying kite already. Gonna continue with that, vids will follow.
Do I get it right, you have changed line row locations in the kite to the "geometric" points?

Locating line rows according to the used mixer type is one of the basics of foil kite design. There is some design reasons why line rows are where they are, or at least there should be. I don't see anything very unusual how it is done with A15 - if it is done differently kite will change its camber during the bar movement in a way which may not be good.

Main reason why foil kites with big chords are so slow is they are heavy, they have so much inertia. It can not be helped, or only way to make them react faster is to use them in higher winds which is of course possible only for heavy weight riders. If you are strong like bull, weight 300lbs and the wind is 25kn, then 18m foil kite is not that slow any more :)

kitexpert
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:20 pm
Kiting since: 2003
Gear: many kites, also diy
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby kitexpert » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:02 pm

@ KfG: I rechecked your previous post for "backweighted mixer", it really is a new idea (or at least something I haven't seen earlier). For me it buried in your quite long post, when I quickly looked at it I saw it just as an ordinary 1:2:4 mixer.

I see it like a three line row system (1:2) with added line row C which is pulled 3:4. Problem is line row locations in a kite designed for 1:2:4 mixer are not very reasonable for those ratios. Other question is how useful that idea is in general, you can think main support of the bridles should be where the main lift is created, which is in normal A-B area (at 10%-35% of the chord).

foilholio
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2391
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:20 am
Kiting since: 1337
Local Beach: Ventura Beach
Favorite Beaches: Tarifa
Style: Airstyle
Gear: Foils
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby foilholio » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:49 pm

But but kit expert how could it be a new idea?? You tried everything with mixers 10-13 years ago and there is nothing not already tried with mixers you said? How is this possible? If it's new does does that mean you didn't think of it? How is that possible? Don't you know how to do everything and are an expert? Or should I say haven't you already tried everything and know exactly what works and doesn't? Why is it kite companies keep developing new kites then? Is it because they haven't consulted you? Don't you think it's naive of the likes of Flysurfer and Ozone when they think they can design a new kite? When you can so clearly draw a rough copy in CAD after the fact? And look like you can design kites too? :lol:
kit expert wrote: Problem is line row locations in a kite designed for 1:2:4 mixer are not very reasonable for those ratios.
Perfectly reasonably for advanced kite design. Gives very light bar pressure and high camber increase.
kit expert wrote: you can think main support of the bridles should be where the main lift is created, which is in normal A-B area (at 10%-35% of the chord).
No lift is not restricted to just 10to35% but moves between outermost bridle attachment points A and Z. And can actually move past them on rare occasions too!
kit expert wrote: Something strange here, chord length of 2.2m is long but not unusually so.
Well you would need to also look at the Span to accurately make that judgement.

kit expert wrote: I don't see anything very unusual how it is done with A15
Blind?
kit expert wrote: if it is done differently kite will change its camber during the bar movement
Which is the cornerstone of advanced parafoil design. Any kite designer that didn't understand camber change or use it, would be like a car designer touting horses over electric motors.
kit expert wrote: Main reason why foil kites with big chords are so slow is they are heavy, they have so much inertia.
No this is because their designers choose thick airfoils for them and that's because their education on airfoils is stuck back in the 1930's, or we could say early 2000's to current as that is how recent completely discredited aerodynamic theory is still being taught in some places :o
kit expert wrote: If you are strong like bull, weight 300lbs and the wind is 25kn, then 18m foil kite is not that slow any more :)
Thankyou the ladies say I am like bull in bed too.

kitexpert
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 11:20 pm
Kiting since: 2003
Gear: many kites, also diy
Brand Affiliation: None

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby kitexpert » Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:38 am

Well, perhaps I should have written "new reasonable idea" or something like that.
foilholio wrote: Perfectly reasonably for advanced kite design. Gives very light bar pressure and high camber increase
LoL, what is wrong with you? You don't know much of kite design and even less "advanced kite design". Everyone who reads your posts and knows this subject knows that. Everyone.

If "backweighted mixer" is tried on a kite which is designed for normal 1:2:4 mixer it produces high bar pressure and drastic decrease of camber when sheeted in. Not very reasonable and completely against what you try to explain.

You foilholio just don't understand this kind of things at all - even though I've tried for years to bang them in your head.

Like I predicted and knew FS in their Soul - or any other serious kite manufacturer in their products - uses normal mixer and does not need or develop new mixers because current one is fully functional. What part of this is so difficult to understand?

Rest of your post is same meaningless BS, I'm not going to waste my time with it. KfG has at least some sense in his posts, even though his idea of "backweighted mixer" is apparently not very useful.

Kiter_from_Germany
Medium Poster
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:39 am
Kiting since: 4
Local Beach: Northern Sea, Netherlands
Style: intermediate Twin, beginner Wave
Gear: Tubes: North Dice 10,ozone catalyst 14, Slingshot Turbine 17m and others
Foil: pansh A15 12m, 18m
Gear: Anton MTrain, (strapless) Directionals
Brand Affiliation: none

Re: The Pansh A15, an A18 review

Postby Kiter_from_Germany » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:39 am

Hello, everybody,
my idea to find a forum where you can exchange ideas on difficult issues of kite design seems to be in danger.

Actually I'm sad to feel an emotional tornado.

In our discussions, the question arose occasionally as to whether or not certain technical considerations were appropriate.

I would like to extend this consideration to the exchange of blows that is currently taking place, but at this point I would like to conclude that it stands in the way of clarifying serious technical questions.

Do we not want to put aside any personal sensitivities or anger that may (have) exist and devote attention to the technical aspects of the contributions?

Would that be an idea?


Return to “Foil Kites”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron